Sando QB rankings

[HumanCockroach]

Casserly, Jawarski, pretty much all the old school guys are on that kick right now. There wasn't a lot of noise for Brees either until he moved on to NO.... it's what the old guard does, they won their way, and can't accept their way isn't the only way.... they are coming around slowly, Warner and Young seems to hold him in high regard, winning another SB would go a LONG way to shutting up those guys, I mean Casserly was sold on Carr, I'm not overly concerned about whether he stamps Wilson with any type of approval. Lot of these guys weren't sold on Rodgers, or Young, or Brady either.... F' em let them jabber about what they want ( though it seriously does shock me how bonerfide they are about Kap, they get a guy that carries himself like Manning, ison the same career arc as Brady, is polite, respectful, looks and acts the part, and they can't get past the 2" height bias? I mean WTF?)

[Anthony]

So I decided to email a certain so called expert ex GM. All I said was what would you think of a QB with these stats in their first 2 years. I quoted Lucks stats. They came back saying that QB is not playing well and is an avg at best performer so far. I then sent back RWs stats without letting this person who is who. They came back saying this QB is a top 10 Elite QB. When I revealed who is who, the excuses started about Luck not having anything. So I then sent back the info comparing what each has to support them, I did this in a way that would make it very hard to tell who is who. He said QB A had more support, QB A was Luck. When I told him, he said does not matter luck is Elite RW is not and never will be, because he is not a prototypical QB, When I asked to define, he said 6'2". That ex GM Casserly

[Hawktawk]

super bowl 48 baby any questions?

[Eaglehawk]

Wilson beat the Niners when it counted, the Saints twice and the best offense EVER according to some, with no line to speak of himself, and running for his life at times and Luck is better than him?

Man, I think I'm gonna puke.

[Hawktawk]

Casserly had these QB's ahead of Wilson. In the AFC it was Brady,Manning,Rivers, Rapistburgher,Luck,and Flacco. In the NFC it was Rodgers,Brees,Eli,Matt Ryan,Mathew Stafford,Tony Romo, and Nick Foles. So he actually has Wilson ranked #14. IMO the biggest 2 Manning and Brady are overrated choking frauds. Rodgers, maybe I can buy that one. Honestly that's the only guy I would rate ahead of Wilson and only by a whisker. Wilson is a far better leader in the locker room. The rest are either on the downside of their career or they are who they are which is not as good as Wilson. Foles is basically unproven and hes 0-1 in the postseason vs a team Seattle throttled. Flacco? what a joke.Romo and Stafford LMFAO REALLY? Casserly looks like an idiot letting stuff like that go to press.

[NorthHawk]

I think Wilson is pretty good, and may be ahead of the curve at this point, but I'm going to wait for another few years before making any statements about the 2012 QB draft class.
As for this ranking, its about reputation and peoples initial impressions about what a QB should be.
After about 5 years, we should have a better measuring stick.

[HumanCockroach]

Usually by the end of the third or the beginning of the fourth season there is a pretty good barometer of what a young QB will be, if Wilson continues to consistently put up triple digits in QBR and continues to be a league leader in ypa and ypc I'm not sure how even the most biased "expert" can ignore his success. He already holds a slew of records for the first two seasons to start a career, and Luck, RGIII etc can't match that. Another long stretch in the post season, a slightly more balanced attack and even guys like Casserly will have to acknowledge him ( though even if Luck continues to put up his mid to high eighties QBR he'll still be the favored knob sucking location). There's a reason guys like Casserly are 'former' GM's and it isn't because they were always right or the were the best evaluators in the game. Let them talk, who gives a F? If they can't see it, who cares? I mean ultimately it is about winning, and winning often, and if a guy like Casserly would rather have Rodgers ( and that isn't a knock on a truly excellent player) or Rivers or Romo or whomever while they continue to flame out in the post season, or even miss it entirely, no sweat off my brow. I'll be happy as a clam to sit back and watch Wilson win a few more Lombardi's and pass each and every one of his favored picks, and smile the whole time.

[RiverDog]

I think Wilson is pretty good, and may be ahead of the curve at this point, but I'm going to wait for another few years before making any statements about the 2012 QB draft class.
As for this ranking, its about reputation and peoples initial impressions about what a QB should be.
After about 5 years, we should have a better measuring stick.

Ah, North Hawk. Always the voice of reason. You used very few words but summed up my sentiments on this subject to a 'T'.

This argument between Luck and Wilson doesn't cause me to get my briefs in a wad nearly as much as it does others. It's fun to debate topics like this one, but that's about all it's good for. Besides, I'm not nearly as interested in individual accomplishments as I am in team accomplishments.

[Futureite]

future, you might as well throw in the towel, your not thinking well, i am afraid you have a concussion

We can count the number of QBs out of this class that were put behind center beginning wwek 1 and asked to deal from the pocket like a 10 yr vet. That was Andrew Luck. He did not have an 8 or 9 game break in period like Wilson, or any time on the bench like Kaep. I think Wilson is a dynamic QB that is capable of doing a lot of things very well, but he is not the caliber of a pure pocket thrower as luck. Luck makes NFL.throws that few vets (let alone 2nd yr QBs) can make. His full compliment of abilities was on display as he marched down the field in the 4th qtr V your D, which was clearly the NFL's best. Hitting guys with Hawks in his face, on the move, and delivering beautifully from the pocket. No matter what anyone says, Luck stepped into a 2 win team that had nowhere near the surrounding talent that the Hawks or Niners had, and he carried the load almost exclusively. Very few guys in the history of the entire NFL have done what he did. IMO he is the best young QB bar none.

[Anthony]

future, you might as well throw in the towel, your not thinking well, i am afraid you have a concussion

We can count the number of QBs out of this class that were put behind center beginning wwek 1 and asked to deal from the pocket like a 10 yr vet. That was Andrew Luck. He did not have an 8 or 9 game break in period like Wilson, or any time on the bench like Kaep. I think Wilson is a dynamic QB that is capable of doing a lot of things very well, but he is not the caliber of a pure pocket thrower as luck. Luck makes NFL.throws that few vets (let alone 2nd yr QBs) can make. His full compliment of abilities was on display as he marched down the field in the 4th qtr V your D, which was clearly the NFL's best. Hitting guys with Hawks in his face, on the move, and delivering beautifully from the pocket. No matter what anyone says, Luck stepped into a 2 win team that had nowhere near the surrounding talent that the Hawks or Niners had, and he carried the load almost exclusively. Very few guys in the history of the entire NFL have done what he did. IMO he is the best young QB bar none.

What the heck are you smoking? Rw was the QB of the first game of his rookie season and never looked back. What kind of crap are you spewing. Once again Luck form the pocket 60.3 Rw from the pocket over 66.1% complt remind me who is the better pocket QB oh yeah the own with the better complt % and as if that is not enough RW has an accuracy % of 72.6 to lucks 69.9, higher YPA at 8.1 to lucks 6.8, etc.
https://www.profootballfocus.com/wp-con ... ramble.png. Also since Rw played behind the worse pass blocking o-line in the league while Luck was behind a top 10 pass blocking o-line lets compare throwing on the run, that I part of being a QB too,

RW complt% on scrambles 50.9 accuracy 68.1 Luck 38.1 complt% and 64.3 accuracy. https://www.profootballfocus.com/wp-con ... ambles.png

So RW is better in the pocket and on the run, and doing it without a HOF wr, or top 10 WR corps without a top 10 pass blocking o-line like Luck has

FYI RW makes all the throws luck can make and then some. I mean really you have nothing, no stats, no facts just your worthless opinion that the stats show is wrong. Please stop embarrassing yourself and shut up. You are wrong on every level, but again let me help you again. Luck stepped into a team that sucked for luck and was a 10 win team the year before, who had a HOF wr, a top 10 pas blocking o-line just stop nothing you say is true at all.

So again let me help these are called facts you should try using some sometimes, note not all of these are mine, so I give credit to the how put some of this together.
Luck had a top 10 pass blocking o-line, Rw had the 32nd or worst pass blocking o-line

Completion Percentage

1) Manning = 65.5%
2) Wilson = 63.6%
3) Brady = 63.4%
4) Luck = 57%

Yards Per Pass Attempt

1) Wilson = 8.1
2) Manning = 7.7
3) Brady = 7.5
4) Luck = 6.8

Passer Rating

1) Wilson = 100.6
2) Manning = 97.2
3) Brady = 95.7
4) Luck = 81.5

Touchdown/Interception Ratio

1) Wilson = 2.74
2) Brady = 2.7
3) Manning = 2.24
4) Luck = 1.7

Passing Touchdowns Per Season Average

1) Manning = 30.69
2) Wilson = 26
3) Brady = 25.64
4) Luck = 23

Passing Yards Per Season Average

1) Luck = 4098
2) Manning = 4059
3) Brady = 3510
4) Wilson = 3238

Rushing Yards Per Season Average

1) Wilson = 514
2) Luck = 316
3) Brady = 55
4) Manning = 44

Passing + Rushing Yards Per Game Average

1) Luck = 276
2) Manning = 257
3) Wilson = 234
4) Brady = 222

Career Win %

1) Brady = 76.5%
2) Wilson = 75.7%
3) Manning = 67.7%
4) Luck = 65.7%

Total Super Bowl Wins

1) Brady = 3
2) Wilson = 1
3) Manning = 1
4) Luck = 0

Super Bowl Win %

1) Wilson = 100%
2) Brady = 60%
3) Manning = 33%
4) Luck = N/A

Super Bowl Wins Per Season%

1) Wilson = 50%
2) Brady = 21.4%
3) Manning = 6.25%
4) Luck = 0%


TOTAL 1ST PLACE RANKINGS:

1) Wilson = 6
2) Brady = 2
3) Manning = 2
4) Luck = 2

TOTAL 2ND PLACE RANKINGS:

1) Wilson = 4
2) Manning = 4
3) Brady = 3
4) Luck = 1

TOTAL 3RD PLACE RANKINGS:

1) Brady = 6
2) Manning = 5
3) Wilson = 1
4) Luck = 0

TOTAL 4TH PLACE RANKINGS:

1) Luck = 9
2) Wilson = 1
3) Brady = 1
4) Manning = 1


CONCLUSION:

When comparing all 4 of these QB's Wilson appears to be the best so far.

If we apply the scientifically fool-proof scoring system used in Mario Kart for the Super Nintendo the scoring would be as follows:

1st Place = 9 Points
2nd Place = 6 Points
3rd Place = 3 Points
4th Place = 1 Point

FINAL RANKINGS:

1) Wilson = 82 Points
2) Manning = 58 Points
3) Brady = 55 Points
4) Luck = 33 Points

Now the run game comparison

GB was 7 in rushing and avg 4.7 ypa,
NE was 9th and avg 4.4 ypa,
Indy was 20th but avg 4.3 ypa,
Denver was 15th and avg 4.1 ypa,
Detroit was 17th and avg 4.0 ypa
Seattle were 4th and avg 4.3 ypa
NO was 25th and avg 3.8 ypa
Now by YPA
GB 4th at 4.7 459 attempts
NE 9th at 4.4 470 attempts
Seattle 12th at 4.3 509 attempts
Indy 13th at 4.3 409 attempts
Denver 20th at 4.1 461 attempts
Detroit 22nd at 4.0 445 attempts
NO 25th at 3.8 391 attempts

Take out the QB yardage and the number are even closer since RW had 539 yards rushing and the next nearest on this list had was luck who had only 377 and then Rogers at 120, so you can see that RWs ability to run skews the numbers a lot and he avg 5.6 ypa so that even skews that number.

Without QB

Denver 1873 yards 461 attempts 4.1 ypa
GB 1955 yards 412 attempts 4.7 ypa
Detroit 1723 yards 408 attempts 4.3 ypa
NE 2047 yards 438 attempts 4.67 ypa
Seattle 1649 yards 413 attempts 3.99 ypa
Indy 1366 yards 342 attempts 3.99 ypa
NO 1421 yards 356 attempts 3.99 ypa


so as you can see without RW we are actually not as good as running the ball as we think, of course people will point to lynch so lets look just at the to RB from each team(of 2 rbs are close in stats I will list both

Seattle-Lynch had 1257 yards on 301 attempts and 4.2 ypa( no other RB avg over 4 ypa)
GB-Lacey had 1178 yards on 284 attempts and 4.,1 ypa
Denver-Moreno had 1038 yards on 241 attempts 4.3 ypa
Det-Bush had 1006 yards on 223 attempts 4.5 ypa
Ne-Ridley had 773 yards on 178 attempts 4.3 ypa-note they also had Blount who had 772 yards on 153 attempts 5.0 ypa
Indy-Brown had 537 yards on 102 attempts 5.3 ypa
NO- Thomas had 549 yards on 147 attempts 3.7 YPA(interestingly all the other RBs they have avg over 4.2 ypa and mark ingram who had 386 yards avg 4.9)

So even going by the top RB we actually had the 2nd lowest ypa, so more proof all these teams have good run games the just do not run as much.

Indy top 10 scoring defense

The Colts average starting field position was their own 28 yard line. The Seahawks Average starting field position was their own 31 yard line. So stow the argument that the Seahawks defense gave Wilson a substantially shorter distances to travel for his touchdowns, because it just isn't true. Here's the link:
http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/drivestatsoff

DVOA is a method of evaluating teams, units, or players. It takes every single play during the NFL season and compares each one to a league-average baseline based on situation. DVOA measures not just yardage, but yardage towards a first down: Five yards on third-and-4 are worth more than five yards on first-and-10 and much more than five yards on third-and-12. Red zone plays are worth more than other plays. Performance is also adjusted for the quality of the opponent. DVOA is a percentage, so a team with a DVOA of 10.0% is 10 percent better t
the average team, and a quarterback with a DVOA of -20.0% is 20 percent worse than the average quarterback. Because DVOA measures scoring, defenses are better when they are negative. For more detail, read below.
http://www.footballoutsiders.com/info/methods

First, we'll take a look at how each performed in their respective divisions.

Russell Wilson
NFC West - Not including the Seahawks
Average Defensive DVOA: -8.73
Completions: 77
Attempts: 141
Yards: 995
Completion Rate: 55%
TD: 9
INT: 3
Passer Rating: 89.4

Andrew Luck
AFC South - Not including the Colts
Average Defensive DVOA: 5.97
Completions: 124
Attempts: 212
Yards: 1422
Completion Rate: 58%
TD: 8
INT: 3
Passer Rating: 85.45

What we see here is that Russell Wilson plays in a division whose average defensive DVOA (-8.73) would be good enough to tie for 7th best in the league, and that's not including the Seahawks. Andrew Luck plays in a division whose average defense is well...below average (5.97). A score good for 9th worst. I actually fully expected to see Lucks numbers really stand out here considering the disparity of talent in the two divisions. Instead, we see Luck with a marginally better completion rate (3%), one fewer touchdown, and a passer rating four points lower than Wilson's, while throwing the ball 63 more times and gaining 427 more yards. The Yards and attempts can be explained away by offensive scheme; The shocking efficiency with which Wilson produces against far more competent division foes, cannot.

Against common opponents, the picture starts to get a little clearer. Keep in mind that Wilson has to play the Forty Niners, Cardinals, and Rams twice each while Luck got to throw against Houston, Jacksonville and Tennessee twice. The two divisions also played each other, so that's 9 common opponents. Common opponents are highlighted in blue in the chart above.

Russell Wilson Versus common opponents.

Completions: 126
Attempts: 216
Yards: 1577.00
Completion Rate: 58.33%
TD: 13
INT:5
Passer Rating: 91.53

Andrew Luck versus common opponents.

Completions: 190
Attempts: 324
Yards: 2097.00
Completion Rate: 58.64%
TD: 10
INT: 7
Passer Rating: 79.2

Clearly, Andrew Luck struggled against the rest of the NFC West, posting 675 yards, 2 TDs, 4INTs and a passer rating of 67.37.

This really brought down his common opponents score while Wilson's 582 yards, 4TDs and 2 INTs with a 95.52 passer rating against the rest of the south shot his up.

Further Luck in his 2 seasons has p0layed teams with a pass defense with an avg ranking of 18th, Rw has had to p0lay pass defenses with an avg ranking of 12th, further proof that Luck has had it easier.

It's pretty evident that Wilson has been more efficient against much stiffer competition, and when factoring all common opponents is clearly the better player.

now see who is better under pressure


RW complt% under pressure 49.3, Luck under pressure 44.1 https://www.profootballfocus.com/wp-con ... essure.png

Rw deep ball complt% 52.4% Luck 42.4% http://regressing.deadspin.com/charts-w ... 1469917039

And of course lets remember Luck plays in the AFC a u much weaker division, and Rw plays in NFC the NFC west the hardest in the NFL

Straight up

Rw 6473 yards, 800 attempts Comp% 63.6, 8.1 ypa, 52 tds, 6.5td%, 19 ints, 2.4 int%, 100.5 QB rating, 1028 rushing yards, 5 rushing tds
Luck 8196 yards, 1197 attempts, complt% 57, 6.85 ypa, 46tds, 3.8td%, 27int, 2.3int%, 81.5 Qb rating, 632 rushing yards, 9 rushing tds

So basically other than yards and attempts Rw beats luck, and add in that when you only through 25 times a game you have less margin for error.

IF you through 25 times a game and you start 1-10 you have to go 15-15 on the next 15 to get to 64%.
IF you through 35 times a game and you start 1-10 you can go 21-25 and get to 62+% so you have more margin for error.

Now for another big comparison, playoffs the big games, career playoffs to date

RW 1096 yards, 63% complt%, 6 tds, 1 int, 8.47 YPA, 102 Qb rating, 169 rushing yards 1 td
Luck 1062 yards, 54% complt%, 6 tds, 8 ints, 7.16 ypa, 68 qb rating, 85 rushing yards 0 tds

So there you go all he stats and fact showing your wrong, now do yourself a favor and let it go, because all you are doing is making yourself look stupid. Not to mention the more you spout crap the more I look for stats and facts to show you are wrong and the worse you look as more stats and facts are found supporting RW being better than Luck period.

[HumanCockroach]

future, you might as well throw in the towel, your not thinking well, i am afraid you have a concussion

We can count the number of QBs out of this class that were put behind center beginning wwek 1 and asked to deal from the pocket like a 10 yr vet. That was Andrew Luck. He did not have an 8 or 9 game break in period like Wilson, or any time on the bench like Kaep. I think Wilson is a dynamic QB that is capable of doing a lot of things very well, but he is not the caliber of a pure pocket thrower as luck. Luck makes NFL.throws that few vets (let alone 2nd yr QBs) can make. His full compliment of abilities was on display as he marched down the field in the 4th qtr V your D, which was clearly the NFL's best. Hitting guys with Hawks in his face, on the move, and delivering beautifully from the pocket. No matter what anyone says, Luck stepped into a 2 win team that had nowhere near the surrounding talent that the Hawks or Niners had, and he carried the load almost exclusively. Very few guys in the history of the entire NFL have done what he did. IMO he is the best young QB bar none.

Guess for me, it boils down to turnovers in the post season, he has in general minus one fantastic half against an injury riddled KC team played not just mediocre but horribly in the post season. Hell, a large reason he had to play flawless ( though he didn't) against KC to pull that game out of the fire was because of his turnovers and ineptitude in the first half, that was followed by one of the worst games against a fairly poor defense I've seen in the post season in recent memory. Until Luck expands beyond physically gifted, I reserve judgement. There has been so many QB's that could "make throws that ten year vets" can't when young that have had mediocre or less careers, that until I see a truly impressive stretch of games, I'm not sold yet.

Luck can have his "soft landing for other" excuse if you want ( though not sure how the same could be said about RGIII AS HE Was the offense from the get go, and had a pretty miserable team, and it showed the following year), but that excuse became invalid at the end of his first season, and certainly by the playoffs. I don't think anyone is arguing his talent, but once again, it takes far more than simply talent to become a great QB. IMO Wilson currently is ahead of Luck, and most stats bear that out as true.

You know me, don't heap praise on QB's that cause the situation that makes them come back and win the game because of their own mistakes in the beginning, and Luck as of now seems to be following that model.

[Futureite]

future, you might as well throw in the towel, your not thinking well, i am afraid you have a concussion

We can count the number of QBs out of this class that were put behind center beginning wwek 1 and asked to deal from the pocket like a 10 yr vet. That was Andrew Luck. He did not have an 8 or 9 game break in period like Wilson, or any time on the bench like Kaep. I think Wilson is a dynamic QB that is capable of doing a lot of things very well, but he is not the caliber of a pure pocket thrower as luck. Luck makes NFL.throws that few vets (let alone 2nd yr QBs) can make. His full compliment of abilities was on display as he marched down the field in the 4th qtr V your D, which was clearly the NFL's best. Hitting guys with Hawks in his face, on the move, and delivering beautifully from the pocket. No matter what anyone says, Luck stepped into a 2 win team that had nowhere near the surrounding talent that the Hawks or Niners had, and he carried the load almost exclusively. Very few guys in the history of the entire NFL have done what he did. IMO he is the best young QB bar none.

Guess for me, it boils down to turnovers in the post season, he has in general minus one fantastic half against an injury riddled KC team played not just mediocre but horribly in the post season. Hell, a large reason he had to play flawless ( though he didn't) against KC to pull that game out of the fire was because of his turnovers and ineptitude in the first half, that was followed by one of the worst games against a fairly poor defense I've seen in the post season in recent memory. Until Luck expands beyond physically gifted, I reserve judgement. There has been so many QB's that could "make throws that ten year vets" can't when young that have had mediocre or less careers, that until I see a truly impressive stretch of games, I'm not sold yet.

Luck can have his "soft landing for other" excuse if you want ( though not sure how the same could be said about RGIII AS HE Was the offense from the get go, and had a pretty miserable team, and it showed the following year), but that excuse became invalid at the end of his first season, and certainly by the playoffs. I don't think anyone is arguing his talent, but once again, it takes far more than simply talent to become a great QB. IMO Wilson currently is ahead of Luck, and most stats bear that out as true.

You know me, don't heap praise on QB's that cause the situation that makes them come back and win the game because of their own mistakes in the beginning, and Luck as of now seems to be following that model.

Don't you think that argument works both ways though? QBs with great Ds and running game do not have to take many chances. They can wait for the game to come to them without forcing anything. Evenbif their team falls behind 14 in the 4th, there is a good chance the D will create a turnover or run game will get them back in the game. I remember the 49ers comeback V Philly from 23-3 played out just like that. Alex continued to dink and although he made some good throws, that comeback was not made on his arm.

In contrast, you put a team 14 down with a bad D and the QB is going to need to score everytime he touches the ball to have a shot at winning. A QB is nearly always going to make more turnovers when asked to carry the team, with once in a generation type exceptions like Manning or possibly Rodgers. Even guys who IMO arw just a hair below that level such as Drew Brees have had 4 and 5 int games. It comes with the territory when you are asked to be the focal point of the entire team.

I honestly cannot remember any great pocket passers who did not turn the ball over to hurt their teams. Montana threw 3 ints in the catch game. I could say he only made the comeback because he put his team in position to need one, but in reality his team is never even in the Champ game without Montana playing the style that he did, as the centerpiece of the O.

Same is true with Luck. With bad QB play the Colts were a 2 win team. With bad QB play the Hawks were a 7 win team. That illustrates the pressure Luck and RW were under to start their careers better than any other stat could.

[HumanCockroach]

Sorry Future, I don't agree with your assessment about how "bad" that Colts D and running game were ( and the actual stats support that position) there is a vast difference between MEDIOCRE QB play ( which what Seattle had) and HORRID QB play ( which is what the Colts rolled with, not to mention NO experience) you can paint Lucks poor play however you feel like painting it, I'm just not sold on the guy yet. He has time to change that opinion, I'm not writing him off.... yet, but the SAME was professed about guys like Jeff George not all that long ago, so I'm not about to polish the dudes nob like many fans and media are lining up to do.

For do for my money I want the guy that doesn't consistently put his team in a hole , and when called aponupon makes the clutch necessary plays to win important do or die games. The fact remains Wilson has out performed Luck to date, it really is that simple.

[Futureite]

Sorry Future, I don't agree with your assessment about how "bad" that Colts D and running game were ( and the actual stats support that position) there is a vast difference between MEDIOCRE QB play ( which what Seattle had) and HORRID QB play ( which is what the Colts rolled with, not to mention NO experience) you can paint Lucks poor play however you feel like painting it, I'm just not sold on the guy yet. He has time to change that opinion, I'm not writing him off.... yet, but the SAME was professed about guys like Jeff George not all that long ago, so I'm not about to polish the dudes nob like many fans and media are lining up to do.

For do for my money I want the guy that doesn't consistently put his team in a hole , and when called aponupon makes the clutch necessary plays to win important do or die games. The fact remains Wilson has out performed Luck to date, it really is that simple.

So Kerry Collins who had thrown 5 TDs in a Champ game and was given a legit opportunity is horrible and Tarvaris Jackson mediocore? TJack is a terrible starting NFL QB. And so was the kid that took over for Collins in Indy. If you are even remotely comparing the Colt's D to Seattle then this entire discussion is a joke. The Chiefs threw all over them the entire game and the Pats saw that and decided hey, let's just run on them for 200+ yds because it's easier.

The Colts also have nothing close to Marshawn Lynch and never have. No one stacks the box to stop Donald Brown or Trent Richardson.

Look at the Houston game. Down 20-3 going into the 4th and it goes down as a comeback victory for RW. In reality 10 pts came from a forced fumble = FG and then Sherman's pick 6. In OT a couple of personal fouls set up the winning FG. RW threw for just over 100 yds and a pick. If he did not have that D he'd have been forced to do exactly what Luck has had to in countless games.

Look at the fail mary game. Held GB high powered o to 12 pts while Seattle O had mustered 7 pts just prior to the final drive, where not a single pass was completed. That goes down as an RW comeback, yet it was clearly won by the D.

I have no idea why it is so important to prove RW is better than Luck. He is not. I am as big of Kaep fan as you'll find, and I have no problem admitting Luck is better at pure QB. RW and Kaep are dangerous because of their feet, which each use in different ways. Luck is dangerous because of his arm and ability to command a prostyle O. That is not what SF or Seattle currently run, with 50% run and gimic plays like the read option, jet sweeps and basic WR/RB screens. It is no great accomplishment that neither of our QBs turn the ball over. They shouldn't in that style of O.

[Anthony]

Don't you think that argument works both ways though? QBs with great Ds and running game do not have to take many chances. They can wait for the game to come to them without forcing anything. Evenbif their team falls behind 14 in the 4th, there is a good chance the D will create a turnover or run game will get them back in the game. I remember the 49ers comeback V Philly from 23-3 played out just like that. Alex continued to dink and although he made some good throws, that comeback was not made on his arm.

In contrast, you put a team 14 down with a bad D and the QB is going to need to score everytime he touches the ball to have a shot at winning. A QB is nearly always going to make more turnovers when asked to carry the team, with once in a generation type exceptions like Manning or possibly Rodgers. Even guys who IMO arw just a hair below that level such as Drew Brees have had 4 and 5 int games. It comes with the territory when you are asked to be the focal point of the entire team.

I honestly cannot remember any great pocket passers who did not turn the ball over to hurt their teams. Montana threw 3 ints in the catch game. I could say he only made the comeback because he put his team in position to need one, but in reality his team is never even in the Champ game without Montana playing the style that he did, as the centerpiece of the O.

Same is true with Luck. With bad QB play the Colts were a 2 win team. With bad QB play the Hawks were a 7 win team. That illustrates the pressure Luck and RW were under to start their careers better than any other stat could.

First off Luck had a soft landing, he went to a team that had talent but sucked for luck, that is a fact, he had a top 10 pass blocking o-line he has a HOF wr, he has a run game that avg the same YPA as ours, he plays in the weaker conference. That is a soft landing so stop the excuses and the lies. You have nothing you know it, that is why you do not even try to respond to all my facts, because you have none. Luck is what luck is a QB with great potential that so far has been avg at best, those are the facts deal with it.

[Anthony]

Sorry Future, I don't agree with your assessment about how "bad" that Colts D and running game were ( and the actual stats support that position) there is a vast difference between MEDIOCRE QB play ( which what Seattle had) and HORRID QB play ( which is what the Colts rolled with, not to mention NO experience) you can paint Lucks poor play however you feel like painting it, I'm just not sold on the guy yet. He has time to change that opinion, I'm not writing him off.... yet, but the SAME was professed about guys like Jeff George not all that long ago, so I'm not about to polish the dudes nob like many fans and media are lining up to do.

For do for my money I want the guy that doesn't consistently put his team in a hole , and when called aponupon makes the clutch necessary plays to win important do or die games. The fact remains Wilson has out performed Luck to date, it really is that simple.

So Kerry Collins who had thrown 5 TDs in a Champ game and was given a legit opportunity is horrible and Tarvaris Jackson mediocore? TJack is a terrible starting NFL QB. And so was the kid that took over for Collins in Indy. If you are even remotely comparing the Colt's D to Seattle then this entire discussion is a joke. The Chiefs threw all over them the entire game and the Pats saw that and decided hey, let's just run on them for 200+ yds because it's easier.

The Colts also have nothing close to Marshawn Lynch and never have. No one stacks the box to stop Donald Brown or Trent Richardson.

Look at the Houston game. Down 20-3 going into the 4th and it goes down as a comeback victory for RW. In reality 10 pts came from a forced fumble = FG and then Sherman's pick 6. In OT a couple of personal fouls set up the winning FG. RW threw for just over 100 yds and a pick. If he did not have that D he'd have been forced to do exactly what Luck has had to in countless games.

Look at the fail mary game. Held GB high powered o to 12 pts while Seattle O had mustered 7 pts just prior to the final drive, where not a single pass was completed. That goes down as an RW comeback, yet it was clearly won by the D.

I have no idea why it is so important to prove RW is better than Luck. He is not. I am as big of Kaep fan as you'll find, and I have no problem admitting Luck is better at pure QB. RW and Kaep are dangerous because of their feet, which each use in different ways. Luck is dangerous because of his arm and ability to command a prostyle O. That is not what SF or Seattle currently run, with 50% run and gimic plays like the read option, jet sweeps and basic WR/RB screens. It is no great accomplishment that neither of our QBs turn the ball over. They shouldn't in that style of O.

Dude give it up everyone in the NFL knows the Colts were sucking for Luck It is a fact, the rest of your stuffs crap because you are not man enough to admit your wrong, Fact Luck has been avg at best period the acts and stats show it. I supplied a huge amount of facts and stats you have not nor can supply anything to counter any of it, it is so lopsided that now you ignore it, because you know you got nothing, so give it up. There is nothing to prove RW has factually performed better than Luck period. Deal with it, as to his great Arm again Rw has a better completion %, on both in the pocket and out, on longer throws and shorter, just better period deal with it. Ahh by the way Last I checked Seattle was a pro team there for what ever offense they run is a pro style offense, and since others run it to that also make it a pro style offense. I suppose Aikman, Montana, and Young did not play in a pro style offense either huh? The more you talk the more you prove you know absolutely nothing, Again let me remind you throwing less also allows for less mistakes, as I proved. So again stop trying to fill us with lies FACT TO DATE RW HAS THOURGHLY OUTPLAYED LUCK..PERIOD THE FACTS PROVE IT.

[kalibane]

Here goes future trying to cherry pick without context again.

You seriously are going to take Kerry Collins, a mediocre QB by any definition which is why he played for five or six different teams choose the single best game of his career (that happened to occur 15 years ago) when he was 26 years old and try to act like that was the same player who played for the Colts at 39 years old and completed less than 50% of his passes?

I don't even know what the point of this argument is regarding Collins and Jackson but I do know Tavaris Jackson when he was the Seahawks starter with all his flaws was vastly superior to the dried husk of Kerry Collins that played for the Colts.

Don't you get tired of being a complete tool with these ridiculous points you try to make? You are quickly becoming to that guy in my group of friends that the rest of us just laugh at when they try to talk about sports.

It's not important that Wilson is seen as better than Luck... In fact it actually probably helps as motivation for Wilson. But the fact remains Wilson has been better than Luck the past two years and it hasn't been all that close. What are we supposed to just ignore the truth when the subject comes up? I wouldn't expect you to care about Kaep being called lesser than Luck because Kaep IS lesser than Luck. The only arguments that can support Luck being better than Wilson though start with the word "If".

And like I said. I'm more bothered by the fact that Luck is being put in the company of four hall of fame QBs. He hasn't done anything close to warrant being mentioned with those guys.

[burrrton]

The Colts also have nothing close to Marshawn Lynch and never have. No one stacks the box to stop Donald Brown or Trent Richardson.

So Future: are you really going to argue Indy's passing offense was mediocre-to-bad (statistically) because their QB is too good?

That's what your argument boils down to.

Look at the Houston game. Down 20-3 going into the 4th and it goes down as a comeback victory for RW. In reality 10 pts came from a forced fumble = FG and then Sherman's pick 6. In OT a couple of personal fouls set up the winning FG. RW threw for just over 100 yds and a pick. If he did not have that D he'd have been forced to do exactly what Luck has had to in countless games.

This would be a solid argument if we had a sample size of one or two game with which to judge them.

We don't, though- we have two full seasons for each.

I have no idea why it is so important to prove RW is better than Luck. He is not.

The problem for you here, Future, is that you have nothing to support this except your 'gut feeling', while RW's numbers show he's *inarguably* been the better QB.

You may not think that's going to continue, and we can debate that, but to say RW hasn't been better simply isn't supportable.

RW and Kaep are dangerous because of their feet

Only partially right: RW is *also* dangerous, and arguably even BETTER, when he doesn't have to use his feet.

Luck is dangerous because of his arm and ability to command a prostyle O.

"Prostyle O"? "Gimmick" plays like sweeps and WR screens? LOL- I think even *you* are losing faith in your position here, Future.

[RiverDog]

I have no idea why it is so important to prove RW is better than Luck. He is not. I am as big of Kaep fan as you'll find, and I have no problem admitting Luck is better at pure QB. RW and Kaep are dangerous because of their feet, which each use in different ways. Luck is dangerous because of his arm and ability to command a prostyle O. That is not what SF or Seattle currently run, with 50% run and gimic plays like the read option, jet sweeps and basic WR/RB screens. It is no great accomplishment that neither of our QBs turn the ball over. They shouldn't in that style of O.

You don't? You don't realize that this is a Seahawks forum and that Russell Wilson has the stats and a ring on his side?

It's a lot easier for you to admit that Luck is a better QB than Kaep than it is for Hawks fans to do the same with Wilson. Luck has a statistical advantage over Kaep, Kaep doesn't have a ring, and to the contrary, has been roundly criticized for not being able to win the big game.

[HumanCockroach]

Sorry Future, I don't agree with your assessment about how "bad" that Colts D and running game were ( and the actual stats support that position) there is a vast difference between MEDIOCRE QB play ( which what Seattle had) and HORRID QB play ( which is what the Colts rolled with, not to mention NO experience) you can paint Lucks poor play however you feel like painting it, I'm just not sold on the guy yet. He has time to change that opinion, I'm not writing him off.... yet, but the SAME was professed about guys like Jeff George not all that long ago, so I'm not about to polish the dudes nob like many fans and media are lining up to do.

For do for my money I want the guy that doesn't consistently put his team in a hole , and when called aponupon makes the clutch necessary plays to win important do or die games. The fact remains Wilson has out performed Luck to date, it really is that simple.

So Kerry Collins who had thrown 5 TDs in a Champ game and was given a legit opportunity is horrible and Tarvaris Jackson mediocore? TJack is a terrible starting NFL QB. And so was the kid that took over for Collins in Indy. If you are even remotely comparing the Colt's D to Seattle then this entire discussion is a joke. The Chiefs threw all over them the entire game and the Pats saw that and decided hey, let's just run on them for 200+ yds because it's easier.

The Colts also have nothing close to Marshawn Lynch and never have. No one stacks the box to stop Donald Brown or Trent Richardson.

Look at the Houston game. Down 20-3 going into the 4th and it goes down as a comeback victory for RW. In reality 10 pts came from a forced fumble = FG and then Sherman's pick 6. In OT a couple of personal fouls set up the winning FG. RW threw for just over 100 yds and a pick. If he did not have that D he'd have been forced to do exactly what Luck has had to in countless games.

Look at the fail mary game. Held GB high powered o to 12 pts while Seattle O had mustered 7 pts just prior to the final drive, where not a single pass was completed. That goes down as an RW comeback, yet it was clearly won by the D.

I have no idea why it is so important to prove RW is better than Luck. He is not. I am as big of Kaep fan as you'll find, and I have no problem admitting Luck is better at pure QB. RW and Kaep are dangerous because of their feet, which each use in different ways. Luck is dangerous because of his arm and ability to command a prostyle O. That is not what SF or Seattle currently run, with 50% run and gimic plays like the read option, jet sweeps and basic WR/RB screens. It is no great accomplishment that neither of our QBs turn the ball over. They shouldn't in that style of O.

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/p ... llKe00.htm

I could pick apart this post for you, but instead I'll simply post a link to Collins stats and be done with it. Collins wasn't an "average" starter by the time he started the 4 games in Indy, and honestly, he wasn't close to the type of QB that FIT in Indy's system in the first place ( or had you forgotten he was RETIRED before the Colts came begging?). Jackson had and is indeed a mediocre QB hence his .500 Record as a starter in his career, and his mediocre performance in Seattle. As for the other claims, eh, believe what you want, I've watched Wilson win games with his legs, his arm and his drive enough times to know what he is capable of, I've watched Luck play horribly enough times to know what he does fairly often ( especially in big games) to know that no matter how you slice it as of this moment Wilson has out performed Luck on just about every imaginable way, if you don't see it, that is your opinion, and your welcome to it. The stats, victories and hardware say othewise, and I'm comfortable with that.

[HumanCockroach]

LOL. Not a pro style offense. LMFAO it's been in the NFL for quite while now, hell if we're going to discredit certain offenses then we can cross Bree's off the llist for the hall, as most of his success has come in a spread offense with multiple movement and "gadget" trick plays as well. Give me a break. Peyton Fricken Manning ran the "read option" last season a few times, it isn't a gimmick, and Wilson runs it less than MANY teams in the NFL. Luck runs it as well ( though SLIGHTLY less than Wilson)you adjust your offense to strengths of your players, hence Seattle ran more jet sweeps in the SB than they had the entire season leading up to the SB with Harvin on the field, are you claiming that because Favre ran it in Minnesota ( again to that said same player) that he was running a gimmick offense? LMAO , the jet sweep, and read option has been around a hell of a lot longer than you think ( Cunningham for instance ran it in Philly to great success) they didn't run it as often as they do now, but it HAS been used in the NFL for decades.....

[Anthony]

What BS excuse will he come up with next I wonder, some should explain to him that the act of continuing to argue in the fact of overwhelming facts is an sign of stupidity.

[Anthony]

So given that Chasserly said: "When evaluating players you always ask yourself how would that player perform with another team that is better than his. For example, if you put Andrew Luck in Seattle would his numbers improve? I don't have any doubt they would. I decided to do a litle analysis, now for the purposes of this I did not take into account Indys superior o-line, or WR, or our superior defense and run game, just straight up.


So Lucks current Complt% is 57% he throws a TD every 15 complt and avg 6.85 YPA

So on Seattle getting the same attempts as RW the per season numbers for luck would be

2740 yards, 400 attempts 228 complt, 15 tds, That would make him 24th by yards, 24th by TDs and be a huge drop off and way worse than Rws actual numbers)

Now since it says how Qbs would do on other teams lets look at Rw if he was on Indy

Rw current complt% 63.6% and he throws a TD every 9.8 attempts and avg 8.09 YPA

4841 yards 598 attempts, 380 complt, 39 tds

Hmm interesting, The avg luck got worse, and the Elite Rw got even more Elite.

Enough said.

[monkey]

In this particular debate RW falls into (1). He does a lot of things extremely well that Carroll asks him to do, and he plays well under pressure. That said, Luck could go to Seattle and do what RW does. Clearly Luck has a high football IQ and is great under pressure. In fact, he became a phenom in college by playing that exact same style of QB under Jim Harbaugh. But I have a hard time envisioning RW going to Indy and doing what Luck does, which is to sit in the pocket consistently and beat great teams, with no run game or D.

I would argue (if roles were reversed), that Luck could NOT go to Seattle and do the same thing, because Luck has too much gunslinger in him.
He throws too many picks, and he does it in pressure situations, making him NOT great under pressure. For Luck to succeed in Seattle the same way that Wilson has, he would have to learn to NOT throw many of the high risk passes that he throws now, and has always thrown, and would have to become less of a gunslinger.

For Wilson to succeed and even surpass what Luck has done in INdi, on the other hand, all he would have to do is, throw more passes.
He can make any throw that Luck can, he has every bit as much football IQ as Luck, works every bit as hard (harder) is every bit as accurate, and is less foolish with his throws...

I can EASILY envision Wilson going to Indi and doing better than Luck, because he's more careful with the ball. He was in college too, while still throwing a high volume of passes, and a tremendous number of touchdowns.
In other words, if the number of attempts we equal, Wilson could and likely would easily surpass what Luck has done in Indi.

Wilson is (at least at this point in their careers), the better QB (this is actually inarguable according to the numbers).
Could that change? Sure, but I see no reason to expect it would, unless people are still heavily weighting their projections, over the actual product on the field.

[HumanCockroach]

Honestly this comes down to what is someone's "preference". Does that person prefer Favre or Montana? Brady or Vick? Elway or Marino? All damn fine QB's in their own way, some put a priority on protecting the ball, and it worked for them, others threw the ball around the field with abandon and it work for them as well. I prefer QB'S that don't on a regular basis throw their team into bad positions, and "save" them ( from themselves really) after they have done so, but for everyone of me, there is quite a few that would indeed choose the "physically" gifted QB over the "clutch" QB with intangibles that are off the charts. It doesn't mean EITHER is the better choice necessarily, just that the 3rd party perspective leans one way or another.

That all said, there is simply no intelligent way to argue Wilson hasn't out performed Luck to date. The ONLY argument with ANY validity is yardage, and in order to use that one, a person HAS to ignore some pretty damn important information that goes hand in hand with it. The tried and true "look what Luck had to work with" is about as foolish as someone can get, and the validity of that argument is moot and silly, Wilson didn't inherit any more of a dominant team, and it cracks me up every time some fool time tries to use it. Luck arrived with a BETTER receiver core, and offensive line, his defense was solid if not spectacular and he plays in a pretty weak division to boot. The Seahawks defense wasn't "set" when he arrived by any stretch of the imagination, and was STILL drafting and signing guys to take that to the level it is at now ( or have people forgotten where and how well they did the previous season?).

Simply put, those arguing and grasping at straws ( more often than not the ones that discredited the skill players AND defense prior to Wilson arriving) are using revisionists history to claim something to validate a point that is completely BIASED and inaccurate to boot.

[kalibane]

I don't even know why we are entertaining this from a 49er fan honestly (both here and the Sherman thread). Let an argument start up about who was better, Montana or Marino. All these ideas about "system player" will magically evaporate.

[HumanCockroach]

I find it odd when people use the "players" the Seahawks had vs. Colts in assessing what each QB had to work with...... Over half the offense has been replaced, and about half of the defense. Wilson walked in with NO notable receivers, an injured young offensive line, and Lynch. NONE of those LB's, Sherman was a part time player the season before ( though to be fair it wasn't difficult to see how good he could be if one had the mind to see it)Chancellor had started one season, no Wagner, KJ had played half a season as a starter, Irvin hadn't been drafted, they had lost one of the four starters on the D line. Pretty much the Hawks knew what they had in Mebane,Red,Clem,Thomas and Browner with any amount of certainty, on the O it was even more of a cluster F. WILLIAMS for the love of god had a decent shot at being a starting receiver before he got so fat during rehab , Braylon Edwards was a "go to " receiver, TO made an appearance, It was a JOKE on offense coming into that season....

[RiverDog]

I find it odd when people use the "players" the Seahawks had vs. Colts in assessing what each QB had to work with...... Over half the offense has been replaced, and about half of the defense. Wilson walked in with NO notable receivers, an injured young offensive line, and Lynch. NONE of those LB's, Sherman was a part time player the season before ( though to be fair it wasn't difficult to see how good he could be if one had the mind to see it)Chancellor had started one season, no Wagner, KJ had played half a season as a starter, Irvin hadn't been drafted, they had lost one of the four starters on the D line. Pretty much the Hawks knew what they had in Mebane,Red,Clem,Thomas and Browner with any amount of certainty, on the O it was even more of a cluster F. WILLIAMS for the love of god had a decent shot at being a starting receiver before he got so fat during rehab , Braylon Edwards was a "go to " receiver, TO made an appearance, It was a JOKE on offense coming into that season....

Good point about our receiving corps. It's been a weak link for years, well before Carroll arrived. Even today, although it's improved somewhat, it's still not a crew that's going to cause DC's nightmares game planning to stop. Same with the OL.

[burrrton]

I have to reflect back to Northhawks reply that we need to wait for a few years to really judge. I would not trade Wilson for anyone, currently, but that is just me. If we are judging by how they have done so far, then Wilson is a winner. If we try to project, that is a totally different animal. Maybe Kaep will learn to read better, and go to his second or third receiver. If he does, he could be one of the best. Maybe Luck will cut down on turnovers, have a less reckless style, and become great. Maybe Jake Locker will get it together and fulfill his promise. And, Wilson, could regress, and become merely average.

Personally, I am betting on Wilson. He has a drive to get better, and to be the best, that, so far, indicates that he will continue his growth. What he already has produced, with his friends,is a Super Bowl trophy and ring. So, he has a step up already, but greatness is a measure over time, and we will have to wait for that.

The wait should be a real pleasure. I am sure of that.

Well stated, all of it, obs.

[Futureite]

I don't even know why we are entertaining this from a 49er fan honestly (both here and the Sherman thread). Let an argument start up about who was better, Montana or Marino. All these ideas about "system player" will magically evaporate.

No, that was a valid argument. But in that case Montana was throwing to a receiver that was a late rd draft pick as his best target in Dwight Clark and Freddie Solomon for his first 2 SB wins while Marino was throwing to some of the best WRs in the league in Duper and Clayton. Montana put up 28 pts and marched his team downfield at the end of the NFC Champ game for a game winning TD v one of the NFL's best Ds in 1981. Msrino.put up 13 pts and did not play well V one of the NFL's best Ds in the SB. Montana led the NFL in QB rating a record 8 straight yrs and had one of the best statistical seasons of his career at age 39 on the Chiefs. Marino did?

So, that argument is easily distinguishable from this one. Montana was good with any supporting cast, on any team V any D. In our argument Andrew Luck stepped onto a 2 win team while RW threw 1 TD in the playoffs to get his team to the SB. The difference is talent between the two teams is obvious. The difference between what each QB is asked to do is obvious. I ask again, what did RW do at the end of the game V Indy's mediocore D, and what did Luck do V your #1 D? Of course one game does not decide everything, but that game illustrates my point. It's like a microcosm of their two careers. Luck.is constantly called upon to carry the entire team and he does an incredible job. Wilson is asked to do it in certain situations and b any objective measure has far, far less pressure on his shoulders on a game by game basis. If you claim Luck couldn't have thrown 1 TD for Seattle last year in the playoffs I call BS.

And River;

Kaep's career rating is 94.8. Luck has exceeded him in some stats, but not that one. Kaep's D also fell apart in the postseason in 2012, giving up over 30 ppg and yet Kaep nearly won us a SB. Lol so no, it's not "easier foe me to admit" Luck is better; I just believe he is at this point in his career. He is better than Kaep and RW.

[kalibane]

The whole legend of Dan Marino is that he never had the supporting Cast. His best WR was a late round pick and both Clayton and Duper were shrimps. To say the were some of the best WRs in the league is a joke, neither ever made an all pro team. (Dwight Clark did though) Marino never had Wendell Tyler, Roger Craig, Tom Rathman, John Taylor, Brent Jones or that Jerry Rice kid who was kind of good. Marino was also a superior pocket passer and Montana could never have made a lot of the throws Marino made on a regular basis.

Andrew Luck has never been to the big game. In the Playoffs Andrew Luck has 6 TDs, 8 Ints, has a 70 passer rating, has a completion percentage of 55% and a playoff record of 1-2.

Russell Wilson won the Superbowl. In the playoffs Wilson has 6 TDs, 1 Int, has a passer rating of 102, 63% completion, and a playoff record of 4-1.

Funny how that works huh? Can't keep a consistant argument to save your life.

You can make up all the B.S. you want you can act like I don't know what I'm talking about but at least I'm conisistant in my arguments. I've always been Montana over Marino, Brady over Manning and now Wilson (so far) over Luck. My position doesn't change based on which Jersey the players are wearing.

[Anthony]

I don't even know why we are entertaining this from a 49er fan honestly (both here and the Sherman thread). Let an argument start up about who was better, Montana or Marino. All these ideas about "system player" will magically evaporate.

No, that was a valid argument. But in that case Montana was throwing to a receiver that was a late rd draft pick as his best target in Dwight Clark and Freddie Solomon for his first 2 SB wins while Marino was throwing to some of the best WRs in the league in Duper and Clayton. Montana put up 28 pts and marched his team downfield at the end of the NFC Champ game for a game winning TD v one of the NFL's best Ds in 1981. Msrino.put up 13 pts and did not play well V one of the NFL's best Ds in the SB. Montana led the NFL in QB rating a record 8 straight yrs and had one of the best statistical seasons of his career at age 39 on the Chiefs. Marino did?

So, that argument is easily distinguishable from this one. Montana was good with any supporting cast, on any team V any D. In our argument Andrew Luck stepped onto a 2 win team while RW threw 1 TD in the playoffs to get his team to the SB. The difference is talent between the two teams is obvious. The difference between what each QB is asked to do is obvious. I ask again, what did RW do at the end of the game V Indy's mediocore D, and what did Luck do V your #1 D? Of course one game does not decide everything, but that game illustrates my point. It's like a microcosm of their two careers. Luck.is constantly called upon to carry the entire team and he does an incredible job. Wilson is asked to do it in certain situations and b any objective measure has far, far less pressure on his shoulders on a game by game basis. If you claim Luck couldn't have thrown 1 TD for Seattle last year in the playoffs I call BS.

And River;

Kaep's career rating is 94.8. Luck has exceeded him in some stats, but not that one. Kaep's D also fell apart in the postseason in 2012, giving up over 30 ppg and yet Kaep nearly won us a SB. Lol so no, it's not "easier foe me to admit" Luck is better; I just believe he is at this point in his career. He is better than Kaep and RW.

All right what garbage did future post now.

Well actually it is all garbage and BS

We already established though facts that Luck has as much around him as RW does if not more. We already establish that Luck did not come into a 2 win team he came into a suck for luck team.

It is amazing how you are picking 1 game, 1 game to decide the Indy Seattle game, and acting like that is all that matters again by that logic then Clemens one of the worst QBS in the league is way better than Luck as he destroyed Luck in their 1 meeting.

So are you saying Clemens is better than Luck? Well?

Now you wan to pick 1 game to make your stance on then lets do it

SO by your logic if a QB out plays another rin 1 game they are better that means The following QBS are better than Luck; Tannehill, Rivers, Clemnens, Palmer, Dalton, Brady, Cutler, Gabbert, Sanchez, Schaub, Flacco

Wow that is a lot of QBs better than luck and most are not even considered top 10, heck some are not even in the league anymore.

See how moronic your statement looks.

Now lets compare the 2 QBs against common opponents, that will tell you who is who not one game but multiple games




Russell Wilson Versus common opponents.

Completions: 126
Attempts: 216
Yards: 1577.00
Completion Rate: 58.33%
TD: 13
INT:5
Passer Rating: 91.53

Andrew Luck versus common opponents.

Completions: 180
Attempts: 324
Yards: 2097.00
Completion Rate: 55.55%
TD: 10
INT: 7
Passer Rating: 79.2


Hmm once again the stats and fact show RW way out in front


Let me ask you this

Basically Future you are saying stuff we have already proven his false, and you jeep trying to act like we did not.

Fortunately once a gain everything you said is a lie and the facts and stats prove RW is better than Luck and Kap.

You know Future I use to at least have some respect for you, but not any more, you come on here time and time again making BS statements, with nothing to support you and when others, like myself lay out a ton of facts and stats showing you are wrong you do not man up and say I you were wrong, you ignore them, like a little punk.

Man up for once in your life future or just stay off our board.

[HumanCockroach]

The whole legend of Dan Marino is that he never had the supporting Cast. His best WR was a late round pick and both Clayton and Duper were shrimps. To say the were some of the best WRs in the league is a joke, neither ever made an all pro team. (Dwight Clark did though) Marino never had Wendell Tyler, Roger Craig, Tom Rathman, John Taylor, Brent Jones or that Jerry Rice kid who was kind of good. Marino was also a superior pocket passer and Montana could never have made a lot of the throws Marino made on a regular basis.

Andrew Luck has never been to the big game. In the Playoffs Andrew Luck has 6 TDs, 8 Ints, has a 70 passer rating, has a completion percentage of 55% and a playoff record of 1-2.

Russell Wilson won the Superbowl. In the playoffs Wilson has 6 TDs, 1 Int, has a passer rating of 102, 63% completion, and a playoff record of 4-1.

Funny how that works huh? Can't keep a consistant argument to save your life.

You can make up all the B.S. you want you can act like I don't know what I'm talking about but at least I'm conisistant in my arguments. I've always been Montana over Marino, Brady over Manning and now Wilson (so far) over Luck. My position doesn't change based on which Jersey the players are wearing.

Yep, when stats abandon you, make stuff up, dudes a glutton for punishment.FYI Clayton was an 8th round pick, Duper taken at the bottom of the second. smdh.

[burrrton]

Future: Luck's been the better QB!

Everyone: RW has been solidly superior in virtually every statistic kept on QBs.

Future: That's only because Luck's o-line is so bad!

Everyone: Our o-line is worse.

Future: Ok, then that's only because his running game is so bad!

Everyone: Their running game is every bit as good as ours.

Future: Ok, then that's only because the other team concentrates on stopping him because he's so good!

Everyone: So he's such a dangerous QB that his numbers are crappy?

Future: *chirp* *chirp* *chirp*

--------------

So, Future: I've lost track now- has Luck been the better QB, or has he *not* been the better QB but still is the better QB because of all your lame excuses for his subpar (compared to RW) play?

[c_hawkbob]

Just once I want to see Future respond point by point to one of Anthony's posts. Not cherry picking the point he feels comfortable with, but addressing each point honestly.

[HumanCockroach]

You are going to be waiting a looooooooong time Bob.... I USED to break it all down, even provide multiple links, did the research and such, and spoon fed him, but you know, somehow those posts were always ignored, skipped, missed or some other such thing, eventually I just stopped. It wasn't worth the time. I started out believing him when he claimed 'objectivity' and that he was simply a 'fan' of football, and that he looked forward to 'honest and intelligent' discussion, but that has born out to be a bunch of rubbish. he'll throw out an insight occationally, but as the seasons progress that ability has either left him, or he really was never attempting to do so in the first place and stumbled into those insights like a blind man finding water in the desert. I've seen him outright lie, falsify information, claim inability to access a computer, lie about what posters on this board said, claim superiority both in objectivity and knowledge of the sport, claim a superior moral code and fiber than us slubs who follow an inferior team, back track , flip flop and insult the fans repeatedly on their own board, as well as attempt to throw salt in the wounds of basketball fans in this area. These, while not ALL of the nasty little slights he has spewed forward over the last two seasons, plus his inability to admit or even acknowledge posts with pertinent information, is the reason I called him a "troll" all those months ago on the PI, and the majority disagreed.

He's a troll, but a generally well behaved one IMHO that either knows far more about football than he lets on or knows far less than he pretends, either way, he is here to chafe us, and get under our skin where and when he can, which certainly sounds likeone to me.

[RiverDog]

The whole legend of Dan Marino is that he never had the supporting Cast. His best WR was a late round pick and both Clayton and Duper were shrimps. To say the were some of the best WRs in the league is a joke, neither ever made an all pro team. (Dwight Clark did though) Marino never had Wendell Tyler, Roger Craig, Tom Rathman, John Taylor, Brent Jones or that Jerry Rice kid who was kind of good. Marino was also a superior pocket passer and Montana could never have made a lot of the throws Marino made on a regular basis.

Andrew Luck has never been to the big game. In the Playoffs Andrew Luck has 6 TDs, 8 Ints, has a 70 passer rating, has a completion percentage of 55% and a playoff record of 1-2.

Russell Wilson won the Superbowl. In the playoffs Wilson has 6 TDs, 1 Int, has a passer rating of 102, 63% completion, and a playoff record of 4-1.

Funny how that works huh? Can't keep a consistant argument to save your life.

You can make up all the B.S. you want you can act like I don't know what I'm talking about but at least I'm conisistant in my arguments. I've always been Montana over Marino, Brady over Manning and now Wilson (so far) over Luck. My position doesn't change based on which Jersey the players are wearing.

Nice post, Kal.

I guess I'm in a minority (what else is new?) that doesn't mind Futureite claiming that Luck is a better QB than Russell. It's his opinion, and he's entitled to it and has every right to post it on "our board" as any one of us. It's how he's going about justifying it that's worrisome. I wish he'd just admit that his claim is based almost entirely on conjecture or opinion vs. fact or stat based, which is fine by me, so long as he admits it and quits trying to qualify stats that refute his argument and cherry pick those few that support it.

In nearly every statistical category, including team performance, which is the trump card Montana holds over Marino, Russell has the edge, and as we all know, quarterback is the most quantifiable position on the field.

[kalibane]

Like I said Riv... if you want to make the argument fine. I think it's a silly argument but whatever. But when you want to pick Montana over Marino but Luck over Wilson I don't want to hear from you. The case for Montana and against Marino is the EXACT opposite of the case for Luck and against Wilson. If he was arguing for Marino over Montana okay... but well as we see.

[Anthony]

The whole legend of Dan Marino is that he never had the supporting Cast. His best WR was a late round pick and both Clayton and Duper were shrimps. To say the were some of the best WRs in the league is a joke, neither ever made an all pro team. (Dwight Clark did though) Marino never had Wendell Tyler, Roger Craig, Tom Rathman, John Taylor, Brent Jones or that Jerry Rice kid who was kind of good. Marino was also a superior pocket passer and Montana could never have made a lot of the throws Marino made on a regular basis.

Andrew Luck has never been to the big game. In the Playoffs Andrew Luck has 6 TDs, 8 Ints, has a 70 passer rating, has a completion percentage of 55% and a playoff record of 1-2.

Russell Wilson won the Superbowl. In the playoffs Wilson has 6 TDs, 1 Int, has a passer rating of 102, 63% completion, and a playoff record of 4-1.

Funny how that works huh? Can't keep a consistant argument to save your life.

You can make up all the B.S. you want you can act like I don't know what I'm talking about but at least I'm conisistant in my arguments. I've always been Montana over Marino, Brady over Manning and now Wilson (so far) over Luck. My position doesn't change based on which Jersey the players are wearing.

Nice post, Kal.

I guess I'm in a minority (what else is new?) that doesn't mind Futureite claiming that Luck is a better QB than Russell. It's his opinion, and he's entitled to it and has every right to post it on "our board" as any one of us. It's how he's going about justifying it that's worrisome. I wish he'd just admit that his claim is based almost entirely on conjecture or opinion vs. fact or stat based, which is fine by me, so long as he admits it and quits trying to qualify stats that refute his argument and cherry pick those few that support it.

In nearly every statistical category, including team performance, which is the trump card Montana holds over Marino, Russell has the edge, and as we all know, quarterback is the most quantifiable position on the field.

Exactly RIv ( I hope its okay I call you that) that is what I am saying , if all Future did was say is in his opinion Luck is better fine no issues. But he always tries to come up with some lame and easily proven wrong excuse why his opinion is right.

[Futureite]

The whole legend of Dan Marino is that he never had the supporting Cast. His best WR was a late round pick and both Clayton and Duper were shrimps. To say the were some of the best WRs in the league is a joke, neither ever made an all pro team. (Dwight Clark did though) Marino never had Wendell Tyler, Roger Craig, Tom Rathman, John Taylor, Brent Jones or that Jerry Rice kid who was kind of good. Marino was also a superior pocket passer and Montana could never have made a lot of the throws Marino made on a regular basis.

Andrew Luck has never been to the big game. In the Playoffs Andrew Luck has 6 TDs, 8 Ints, has a 70 passer rating, has a completion percentage of 55% and a playoff record of 1-2.

Russell Wilson won the Superbowl. In the playoffs Wilson has 6 TDs, 1 Int, has a passer rating of 102, 63% completion, and a playoff record of 4-1.

Funny how that works huh? Can't keep a consistant argument to save your life.

You can make up all the B.S. you want you can act like I don't know what I'm talking about but at least I'm conisistant in my arguments. I've always been Montana over Marino, Brady over Manning and now Wilson (so far) over Luck. My position doesn't change based on which Jersey the players are wearing.

Well criticizing a 2nd yr QB or not going to the big game after stepping into a 2 win team is absurd. You are citing a lot of stats, yet nearly everyone here is closing their eyes to the one stat that is least subject to debate: wins. In what world does a rookie QB light up the world on a 2 win team? RW struggled prerty well for half of his rookie season and would have had Indy nowhere near the playoffs had he started there. GB's D was aweful and RW was barely moving the ball that entire Monday Night game! I mean really, who is being objective here, you or me??

You do realize that I've posted Luck is better than Kaep too. Oh, that is "ok" because it's assumed he is here, but using the same benchmark you are applying, if Kaep had your Seattle 2013 D performance he'd have routed every single postseasin game. What kind of even benchmark is it to compare a guy who can put up friggin 100 yds passing and stull have a D that tugs the entire team all the way back from 20-3 to a guy in Luck who's D can barely hold a 20+ pt lead?

So you can ignore all of that and pretend RW's 300+ yds and 1 td combined in the playoffs and a gazillion redzone opps with only fgs to show was some masterful accomplishment that Luck could not achieve, but everyone saw it for what it was.

Now if I ranked the young QBs now it would be (1) Luck (2) RW (3) Kaep (4) Newton. But there is a big difference between 1 and 2-3 in pocket presence, footwork and ability to command a prostyle O. I think our guys can get there, but they are not there yet.